Post by bixaorellana on Dec 9, 2010 15:02:18 GMT

This is taking even more interesting twists and turns. I imagine by the time I'm reading the morning news, many of you have already seen the reports of the cyber counter-attacks. Many computer-wielding Davids are going up against global Goliaths.

After denial of bail to Assange, his supporters around the world overwhelmed the sites of Wikileak's "enemies" with traffic, causing those sites to become inaccessible or to markedly slow down.

Article here says,The cyberattacks in Mr. Assange’s defense appear to have been coordinated by Anonymous, a loosely affiliated group of activist computer hackers who have singled out other groups before ... Last weekend, members of Anonymous vowed in two online manifestos to take revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks.

Anonymous claimed responsibility for the MasterCard attack in Web messages and, according to one activist associated with the group, conducted waves of attacks on other companies during the day. The group said the actions were part of an effort called Operation Payback, which began as a way of punishing companies that attempted to stop Internet file-sharing and movie downloads.

Post by kerouac2 on Dec 9, 2010 15:22:18 GMT

I'm still pondering the rape and "sex by surprise" lawsuit. From what I read yesterday, the thing that upset the women was just finding out that he had slept with two different women in two days -- everything was fine until they found out it wasn't true love.

The newspapers tried to explain this weird "sex by surprise" law that only Sweden has, but I didn't get it, because they were clearly having their own problems figuring it out. But from what I was able to gather, the woman can at any time during the sex act change her mind about a detail (which is perfectly normal), and the man must stop everything instantly and retreat the moment she says "I never said you could stick a finger there." Easier said than done in the heat of the moment.

Of course, men have been saying that at rape trials for the past 100 years.

Post by fumobici on Dec 9, 2010 16:17:51 GMT

They are if one assumes that Assange's targeting in this investigation was unrelated to his connections with WikiLeaks as claimed by the authorities. Of course if you believe that you should also be aware I have a screaming deal for you on a bridge over the East River.

The apparent weakness of the charges used as a pretext for confining Assange to me reeks of both palpable ineptitude and desperation. If this "sex trap" is the best the CIA et al can manage, they should be tried for gross incompetence in their spooking.

Post by bixaorellana on Dec 9, 2010 16:29:13 GMT

I'm far more interested in the implications of organized jamming of websites. So far, this seems to the effort of fewer than 2,000 people, but it did make an impact on MC, Amazon and other biggies. Where does admiration, grudging or otherwise, for the little guys going up against the powers-that-be segue into resentment when our own desire to access a corporate or government website is thwarted?

Post by bjd on Dec 9, 2010 18:14:46 GMT

Maybe when somebody wants to access Amazon or Mastercard or Paypal and can't do so, to pay for an impulse buy for example, then learns why, perhaps said person will stop to think a bit about what is going on?

Post by kerouac2 on Dec 9, 2010 18:21:32 GMT

The apparent weakness of the charges used as a pretext for confining Assange to me reeks of both palpable ineptitude and desperation. If this "sex trap" is the best the CIA et al can manage, they should be tried for gross incompetence in their spooking.

I'm just wondering how they managed to twist Sweden's arm. As the press pointed out, if the UK or Israel had filed the charges, everybody would immediately imagine puppetry at work. But Sweden has never been considered to be a slave of U.S. policy. So what is up? Do they really have some nasty dirt about Sweden to get these miraculous charges?

As for the new hackers, I am not really interested in them. There are tens of thousands of hackers across the planet just waiting for a golden opportunity to work mischief and get away with it. If they think they have found a worthy cause with public support, they will jump on it because they don't think they risk anything severe in criminal charges.

But their values are a complete farce. Have you ever seen a hacker do anything constructive with his talents? Credit the accounts of NGO's or cancel the debts of the working poor? No, they think it is much better to paralyze the economy.

Post by jazz on Dec 9, 2010 18:41:19 GMT

The Wikileaks issue seems to be polarizing and intensifying by the day. I think people should slow down and think. The issues raised are complex. For me, what is most valuable here, is that finally the basic issue of an ‘internet without bounds’ is being truly explored. With each day, we are being more and more overwhelmed exponentially by an information glut, some think of it as ‘data smog’, whether you are a technical person or a neo-luddite.

I have always questioned the intellectual and emotional abilities of the average human to assimilate the information as rapidly as the inhumane internet spews it out. Some may think it is imperative to read the 250,000 secret documents from the US. How many actually have read any of them? If indeed, it is necessary to have this ‘complete freedom’, is it also good and your right to watch bullying, hurtful videos of a child, the humiliation of which causes him to commit suicide? Do you want your financial and medical records readily accessible online? If you want complete freedom, then you must accept it all.

Julian Assange: My feelings about him are in conflict. He is brilliant and perhaps in his humbler days (if he ever was humble), his motivations were for the common good. I’m not so sure now. I think he carefully chose the moment to surrender to British authorities for maximum exposure and for his personal safety, a wise idea. Only a day or so after this controversy broke, a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada, advocated his assassination. I doubt he was alone in this thought. The furor caused an apology and an explanation that he was’’ joking’. Watch this and see how jovial he was. Assange retaliated, saying he should be charged with ‘incitement to commit murder’.

I do not accept that Assange and his small group have the insight, experience and judgement to decide what should be made public, what should be top-secret, and at what time this information should be revealed. In their opinion, their 'expertise’ appears to cover all cultures throughout the world. I don’t think so. I dislike his threat of releasing another ‘bomb’ of information and find it 'rabble rousing' and a cheap threat.

This leads to another issue. The Prime Minister of Australia has leapt in to defend Assange and, in the case of the US leaks, blame the 22 year old army private who gave the information to Assange ( agree), and the lack of general US security. (agree) But, I feel that Assange and his site should have Accountability and Responsibility for what they release as well. Each one of us, as individuals on a given day, are responsible for what we say to another person and its' repercussions. Why are Assange, his colleagues and their site supposedly exempt from Responsibility? Does anyone here have an answer for this? I know this is being compared (in a minor way) to Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (re: pro Assange), but I’m not buying it. Somewhere in the hierarchy of the WikiLeaks site, someone is making decisions about what will be made public, based on their own opinions. Personally, I don’t trust the judgement of about 8 people (?) to be speaking for me on a global basis. Especially when they claim that they are Not Accountable. Do you?

However, and this is not a contradiction, I prefer to be guided in diverse life situations of which I know little, by a specialized elite. Kerouac:... ' I'm talking about the elite that is created with education. Please do not confuse 'elite' with 'aristocracy' or 'wealthy...'

Although, I agree with Fumobici, that this becomes difficult to maintain. No matter what, even today, if your family background is wealthier and more educated, you begin about 20 steps ahead of someone from a poorly educated, working class background.

I don’t think that anyone is blind to the fact that this is all about WikiLeaks. Assange did turn himself in, he wasn’t arrested. The sex charges are between him and the Swedish legal system.

The recent organized cyber wars are disturbing. Although, the average person was inconvenienced and, more significent, afraid and not understanding? I doubt that Julian was upset. I don’t admire 'the small band of 2,000 hackers,'... they worry me! They are not at all ‘little guys’ and with a mere touch of focused central organization, could create global chaos. They know this. I certainly don’t want to be held hostage to their political goals, whatever they are.

Post by bixaorellana on Dec 9, 2010 22:59:53 GMT

Maybe when somebody wants to access Amazon or Mastercard or Paypal and can't do so, to pay for an impulse buy for example, then learns why, perhaps said person will stop to think a bit about what is going on?

Well, at least one person got the point.

... one contributor to a forum the group uses ... wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”

I do not accept that Assange and his small group have the insight, experience and judgement to decide what should be made public, what should be top-secret, and at what time this information should be revealed.

And I don't accept that everything the government decides is top secret is for our own good, particularly since we are supposed to make informed judgments about voting.

Who are the people sending out those diplomatic dispatches and who decided they were competent?

No matter what we individually think of Assange and his tactics, he has done the world a favor in showing how little protection there is for secrets, and that we should be rethinking the use of 18th century forms of diplomacy in a 21st century world.

Post by kerouac2 on Dec 9, 2010 23:26:32 GMT

Rich family does not mean elite family. Clearly the English language does not understand nuances. Probably we will soon read that gourmet = glutton if the destruction of the language continues in the same vein.

Post by fumobici on Dec 10, 2010 0:22:45 GMT

It seems there's an underlying naive assumption that the interests of the elites and the interests of the rest of us coincide, and while this is sometimes the case often it isn't and trusting in an elite to make decisions that affect those of us outside the elite classes where those interests diverge as they often do is stupidity. The elites are first and foremost interested in their own well being and if that means everyone else loses, then so be it. A quick read of history will bear this view out across time, cultures and political boundaries. As someone astutely noted, power corrupts.

Those who wield power and wealth cannot be trusted to act in the pursuit of the greater good and must be held accountable for their actions for a democracy to function as conceived. Most of the methodologies elites use to exploit the masses are reliant on secrecy to hide their methods and true motivations. Any piercing- even random- of this fog of secrecy is likely to hinder their efforts in this regard and to increase the global fairness and moral integrity of the system.

Once one understands that the elites' interests are frequently at odds with those of the average person's, clarity follows.

Post by jazz on Dec 10, 2010 1:48:05 GMT

Maybe when somebody wants to access Amazon or Mastercard or Paypal and can't do so, to pay for an impulse buy for example, then learns why, perhaps said person will stop to think a bit about what is going on?

Well, at least one person got the point.

... one contributor to a forum the group uses ... wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”And I don't accept that everything the government decides is top secret is for our own good, particularly since we are supposed to make informed judgments about voting.

Who are the people sending out those diplomatic dispatches and who decided they were competent?

No matter what we individually think of Assange and his tactics, he has done the world a favor in showing how little protection there is for secrets, and that we should be rethinking the use of 18th century forms of diplomacy in a 21st century world.

I prefer to be guided in diverse life situations of which I know little, by a specialized elite.

Graduated from Phillips Academy.Graduated from Yale University in 1968and from Harvard Business School in 1975

Pretty impressive. Probably more impressive than most of us. And little George W. Bush was from an elite family, as well -- the specialized elite of a political family.

I prefer to find out as much as I can and to make up my own mind, rather than be guided by a specialized elite.

I think millions of people 'got the point' long before the recent cyberattack on Mastercard. Many have been thinking of this for years and acting upon it in whatever way possible. I don’t accept that everything the government does is necessarily good either, but supposedly we have at least voted for these people to act on our behalf. If not, we change them. I don’t remember voting for a web site or Julian Assange. ’Who are the people sending out those diplomatic dispatches and who decided they were competent?’ The people you voted into office.

The dwindling protection of secrecy has been of concern for at least 20 years. On an individual level most people have virus protection, anti-spyware devices etc. I think Assange’s decision to explode sensitive material onto the internet is questionable.

As I said earlier, Assange seems brilliant. But, others have equally impressive credentials, enriched by years of experience. I am mystified at his site deciding they are qualified to speak for the Rest of the World. Top secret issues are complex, steeped in the history, culture and politics of each country and negotiations are delicate. I’m not sure how deeply aware Assange is of these aspects of North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East, China, India etc.

‘I prefer to find out as much as I can and to make up my own mind, rather than be guided by a specialized elite.’

Of course I share this need to explore for myself and make up my own mind. However, given that I am not planning on running for Prime Minister of Canada, I will need to use my mind to help select a small elite of people who will be governing my city, province and country. Unless you will be running for mayor of your city or President of Mexico, I sense that you will also be depending on or guided by an elite.

Post by jazz on Dec 10, 2010 3:40:31 GMT

It seems there's an underlying naive assumption that the interests of the elites and the interests of the rest of us coincide, and while this is sometimes the case often it isn't and trusting in an elite to make decisions that affect those of us outside the elite classes where those interests diverge as they often do is stupidity. The elites are first and foremost interested in their own well being and if that means everyone else loses, then so be it. A quick read of history will bear this view out across time, cultures and political boundaries. As someone astutely noted, power corrupts.

Those who wield power and wealth cannot be trusted to act in the pursuit of the greater good and must be held accountable for their actions for a democracy to function as conceived. Most of the methodologies elites use to exploit the masses are reliant on secrecy to hide their methods and true motivations. Any piercing- even random- of this fog of secrecy is likely to hinder their efforts in this regard and to increase the global fairness and moral integrity of the system.

Once one understands that the elites' interests are frequently at odds with those of the average person's, clarity follows.

It seems there is a problem of semantics and nuance in this discussion of elites. The definition of elite varies historically and culturally. There is no naïve assumption on my part that the powerful will necessarily act in my best interests, but we attempt to select the best possible people according to our individual ideas. The masses are just as likely to exploit each other, as the elite is to exploit them.

‘The elites are first and foremost interested in their own well being and if that means everyone else loses, then so be it. A quick read of history will bear this view out across time, cultures and political boundaries. As someone astutely noted, power corrupts.’ I agree (somewhat), but this could also be extended to the behavior of ‘the masses’.

Who would you trust to run your country, if not a select group of men and women? I can’t quite imagine billions of cables, faxes, internet postings, erratic visits to countries in trouble with no coordination, financial basis etc. This sounds like anarchy.

What I find ironic about WikiLeaks and Assange, is that according to my definition, they are one kind of elite. Remember your remark about history?...’as someone astutely noted, power corrupts.’ This elite appears to have gained unusual power, based on a website. This elite was not voted into position, but made the unilateral decision to act ‘on our behalf’.

Post by fumobici on Dec 10, 2010 4:33:19 GMT

It seems there is a problem of semantics and nuance in this discussion of elites. The definition of elite varies historically and culturally. There is no naïve assumption on my part that the powerful will necessarily act in my best interests, but we attempt to select the best possible people according to our individual ideas. The masses are just as likely to exploit each other, as the elite is to exploit them.

The masses don't hold the levers power to exploit except perhaps on an individual basis. They may try- their self interested motives being similar to those of power elites- but lacking the means cannot on any significant scale. I don't have any romantic illusions about the masses possessing any inherent moral superiority, given unchecked power and cover of secrecy and I expect most people would behave the same.

Who would you trust to run your country, if not a select group of men and women?

I trust an informed electorate to decide. But not one who are informed essentially only by the information the elites deign to provide. If the elites can invoke a cloak of secrecy whenever they please, democracy inevitably becomes a sham. Control the flow of information and you control the perceptions that steer policy.

What I find ironic about WikiLeaks and Assange, is that according to my definition, they are one kind of elite. Remember your remark about history?...’as someone astutely noted, power corrupts.’ This elite appears to have gained unusual power, based on a website. This elite was not voted into position, but made the unilateral decision to act ‘on our behalf’.

Assange has some power as does anyone whose voice can be heard above the general din, but precious little. He and his hackers are little more metaphorically than a fly buzzing around an elephant. Power in the end lies only with those who can control the police, the military, who can have people surveilled, snooped upon and jailed for crossing them, who have the threat of armed force, be it to criminalize opposition, a phalanx of police to break up a demonstration or to call in the military to invade a disobedient state or the authority to use deadly force in secret as a backstop. Real power is always in the end enforced by means of forced incarceration, violence or the threat of violence.

Post by myrt on Dec 10, 2010 7:51:29 GMT

But surely it is naive to assume that those we elect to represent us are actually the ones with the power.......those involved in the murky and secret world of diplomacy and bureacracy are not elected. They are a separate entity carrying on their business no matter who has been elected to carry the can...and very few of them are accountable for their actions. Indeed they simply get retired with an enormous pension, more often than not, should something unsavoury come to light.

I don't really care about Assange's suitability, or otherwise. Nor do I care about his sexual behaviour. As far as I understand it he is engaged in the first round of a fight to truly make the Internet free and uncensored, for good or ill and to expose the inept, ludicrous and often immoral methods employed by those in power, whether elected or not. It's pointless to get bogged down in a discussion about semantics. The fly/elephant metaphor is very apt - at the moment the powers that be have been swotting and flailing about trying to catch the pesky nuisances...but now they are gathering their big guns and using any methods available to them, whether fair or just, to put an end to their existence. But we all know just how many flies there are out there.....if they all start working together, as seems to be happening, who knows what the end result will be?

This Them or Us attitude is deeply unhelpful but typical.....eventually the many issues raised will have to be discussed in a sensible way instead of the ridiculously hysterical squawkings and trivialisations going on. I look forward to that point arriving........

Post by myrt on Dec 10, 2010 14:42:44 GMT

Hmm, well, I can't say that it has directly affected my views either - more confirmed them really. I don't believe it is of little significance to me though - I am a miniscule drop in a large ocean and completely irrelevant - but nonetheless I expect and hope that profound changes will occur - maybe not directly because of Assange but maybe further down the line and certainly this battle will rage , in whatever form, for many years to come. It is not much ado about nothing to me because I continue to care about the world and the fact that my children and grandchildren are growing up in that world. I never want to become that cynical or dismissive.

Post by fumobici on Dec 10, 2010 16:13:25 GMT

Post by mich64 on Dec 10, 2010 17:33:11 GMT

I respect Myrt for her views. I too will continue to care for the people of the world and the people around me.

As for Mr. Assange, I am at a loss to understand how he believes that holding the world hostage with daily leaks and the fear of escalating them and releasing increasing sensitive information that risks real peoples lives is somehow civil, lawful, productive or providing a way to help the world.

How is he different from any of the governments he finds inferior to his beliefs? By stealing information he has shown his character. Stealing is never an option. He is slowly creating a cold war, forcing governments to return to old methods of information gathering. In releasing these sensitive documents he has put real peoples lives at risk. He steals, he threatens, he attacks, he holds hostage, he risks human life, does he not see that these traits are not endearing anyone to his even having a point of view.

Post by myrt on Dec 10, 2010 18:04:03 GMT

I do very much see your point, Mich. I actually share some of your valid worries but sadly what are the options? The student protests in London recently have made very little impact to the politicians - only when a few get violent do the Media really take any kind of serious interest. The massive public protests in the UK against the invasion of Iraq made NO difference whatever...and so it goes on....... I don't necessarily think Mr Assange wants to bring down governments or destroy regimes - I am hoping he is really trying to show how very little difference there is between any of them - how corrupt, indifferent and manipulative they all are. There must be a better way. Surely it's not too much to ask that our public officials are honest and well meaning. I am still hopeful that this will be the start of a global movement for change. It might be naive of me but I am hoping that his motives are genuine and sincere. Time will tell.

Post by mich64 on Dec 10, 2010 18:48:45 GMT

Myrt, I wish I could believe his motives were for the good and not selfish, I really do and I try to understand all view points. But I cannot believe that he was not aware his method of theft and risking human lives could come from a well meaning individual. Especially when he had the forethought to put measures in place to protect himself. He seems as corrupt, indifferent and manipulative as those he exposes. I do believe there are good, fair, balanced politician's around the world and hope good will outwit evil eventually.

I have been following the news of the British government debating and finally narrowly passing the bill to give the Universities the right to raise tuition costs by up to three times they currently are. I understand that costs are rising for everything during these difficult times, but giving them the right to raise to this amount is not right. I also seen today that Prince Charles and Camilla were caught in the middle of the protester's, sadly this will take over the efforts of the protester's to highlight their plight. It is truly unfortunate the young students are being burdened by the economy. They deserve to receive education at an affordable cost.

Post by kerouac2 on Dec 11, 2010 18:11:35 GMT

The national paper to which I subscribe in Paris has created a mirror site containing all of the Wikileaks releases, without exception. Even though I don't necessarily approve of this information having been released in the first place, I completely support making sure than it can't disappear from the internet -- once the cat is out of the bag, it is ridiculous to try to put the cat back in the bag.

I just hope that this episode will have caused people to think a bit more about what it is really useful to expose and what can be needlessly harmful. As to the fate of Julian Assange, I am not excessively worried about him. He has become too much of a "cause" now for anything severe to happen to him. Will he become wiser from this?

Post by myrt on Dec 18, 2010 9:18:13 GMT

;D I like that, Bixa!

Well, bizarrely, since I have been so interested in this story Julian Assange has ended up out on bail and spending Christmas only a few miles away from me! The local press and TV are giving it all a lot of coverage - which is good since it is remaining topical and in the forefront of the fickle media's attention.

He is giving a lot of interviews obviously. The one I saw with the local TV reporter was very well done - I am full of admiration for the very cool way he answers questions (even ridiculously crass ones). He is coming over as a great deal more competent and savvy than the politicians and commentators who are trying to deride him. And surprisingly, a much nicer sort of person than I previously thought but that may simply be his persuasive 'persona' - he is obviously still deeply impassioned and committed to his cause of action but also seems to have a sense of humour about it all too.

Post by bjd on Dec 18, 2010 13:37:35 GMT

I saw an interview with him by the BBC and must say the BBC's journalist sounded like an idiot. She kept asking him whether he shouldn't just apologize to the women in Sweden. He told her that so far he hasn't been charged with anything, that he stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks after the whole affair started and had been given permission by the Swedes to leave the country. She kept interrupting with her idea about him apologizing to the women.He did keep talking over her to finish what he was saying, not letting himself be interrupted. Maybe he was just trying to finish because she was in a warm studio, he was outside and looked frozen.

Post by bixaorellana on Dec 18, 2010 17:38:05 GMT

I don't necessarily think Mr Assange wants to bring down governments or destroy regimes - I am hoping he is really trying to show how very little difference there is between any of them - how corrupt, indifferent and manipulative they all are.

I quite agree with your reading of the situation, Myrt, and it's gratifying that he is showing himself to be much more than just a prankster.

She kept asking him whether he shouldn't just apologize to the women in Sweden.

Oh yeah -- that would be really smart to tacitly admit guilt. God, people can be so stupid!I really hate watching interviews where the interviewer is obviously not listening to the interviewee, who after all is generating viewers for the network.

Post by bixaorellana on Dec 26, 2010 16:46:18 GMT

I was glad to see evidence in the NYTimes online today that the whole Assange/Wikileaks affair continues to have a ripple effect and to raise questions. This really should not become yesterday's news.

Editorial:

Banks and WikiLeaksPublished: December 25, 2010

The whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks has not been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department has not even pressed charges over its disclosure of confidential State Department communications. Nonetheless, the financial industry is trying to shut it down.

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group, arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are “inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”

The Federal Reserve, the banking regulator, allows this. Like other companies, banks can choose whom they do business with. Refusing to open an account for some undesirable entity is seen as reasonable risk management. The government even requires banks to keep an eye out for some shady businesses — like drug dealing and money laundering — and refuse to do business with those who engage in them.

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

The fact of the matter is that banks are not like any other business. They run the payments system. That is one of the main reasons that governments protect them from failure with explicit and implicit guarantees. This makes them look not too unlike other public utilities. A telecommunications company, for example, may not refuse phone or broadband service to an organization it dislikes, arguing that it amounts to risky business.

Our concern is not specifically about payments to WikiLeaks. This isn’t the first time a bank shunned a business on similar risk-management grounds. Banks in Colorado, for instance, have refused to open bank accounts for legal dispensaries of medical marijuana.

Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.

What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was “too risky”? What if they decided — one by one — to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations? This decision should not be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks.[/size]

A version of this editorial appeared in print on December 26, 2010, on page WK13 of the New York edition.